Shoe introduced indulgences in the OP, that is the door. I think when in a court that a opening is created for inquiry when the opposition introduces the topic.
this isn't a court of law

The OP mentioned Catholic Indulgences as a comparison to LDS baptisms, hence the topic is both LDS baptisms for the dead and Catholic indulgences
you have a knack for stating the obvious. just because someone makes a comparison doesn't mean that they are opening adoor, they are simply making a comparison to help the other person get the point they are trying to make.

I therefore think the generalization is hyperfocused on specific errors of the past by bad Catholics. Tetzel could have been very wrong in approach to indlugences, but I think he gets a bad rap mostly for his defending the practice rather than actually doing it in Luther's understanding
yet neither i nor lattourette were being hyper focused but applying the proper definition for the purpose of the indulgences. too often RCC adherents do not want to face the reality of what indulgences were for.

granted they may have morphed into something else over the years but i wouldn't kid myself that they are for any spiritual reason.

feel free to start a discussion on indulgences in the RCC forum and let us know your idea of their purposes. as i alreay said, you have changed them to fit your sensibilities, so what has stopped the RCC from doing the same (changing the public definition to fit RCC adherent' sensibilities) but keeping the original purpose from the 'faithful'?